Getting incorrect results applying Ampere's law
Let’s say we have a current wire with a current $I$ flowing. We know there is a field of $B=frac{mu_0I}{2pi r}$ by using Ampère's law, and a simple integration path which goes circularly around the wire. Now if we take the path of integration as so the surface spans doesn’t intercept the wire we trivially get a $B=0$ which is obviously incorrect.
I see that I have essentially treated it as if there is no current even present. But a similar argument is used in other situations without fault.
Take for example a conducting cylinder with a hollow, cylindrical shaped space inside. By the same argument there is no field inside.
To further illustrate my point, the derivation of the B field inside of a solenoid requires you to intercept the currents. You can’t simply do the loop inside of the air gap.
This, at least to me, seems like the same thing, and I can’t justify why one is incorrect and the other is incorrect. Please point out why I am stupid.
electromagnetism
add a comment |
Let’s say we have a current wire with a current $I$ flowing. We know there is a field of $B=frac{mu_0I}{2pi r}$ by using Ampère's law, and a simple integration path which goes circularly around the wire. Now if we take the path of integration as so the surface spans doesn’t intercept the wire we trivially get a $B=0$ which is obviously incorrect.
I see that I have essentially treated it as if there is no current even present. But a similar argument is used in other situations without fault.
Take for example a conducting cylinder with a hollow, cylindrical shaped space inside. By the same argument there is no field inside.
To further illustrate my point, the derivation of the B field inside of a solenoid requires you to intercept the currents. You can’t simply do the loop inside of the air gap.
This, at least to me, seems like the same thing, and I can’t justify why one is incorrect and the other is incorrect. Please point out why I am stupid.
electromagnetism
add a comment |
Let’s say we have a current wire with a current $I$ flowing. We know there is a field of $B=frac{mu_0I}{2pi r}$ by using Ampère's law, and a simple integration path which goes circularly around the wire. Now if we take the path of integration as so the surface spans doesn’t intercept the wire we trivially get a $B=0$ which is obviously incorrect.
I see that I have essentially treated it as if there is no current even present. But a similar argument is used in other situations without fault.
Take for example a conducting cylinder with a hollow, cylindrical shaped space inside. By the same argument there is no field inside.
To further illustrate my point, the derivation of the B field inside of a solenoid requires you to intercept the currents. You can’t simply do the loop inside of the air gap.
This, at least to me, seems like the same thing, and I can’t justify why one is incorrect and the other is incorrect. Please point out why I am stupid.
electromagnetism
Let’s say we have a current wire with a current $I$ flowing. We know there is a field of $B=frac{mu_0I}{2pi r}$ by using Ampère's law, and a simple integration path which goes circularly around the wire. Now if we take the path of integration as so the surface spans doesn’t intercept the wire we trivially get a $B=0$ which is obviously incorrect.
I see that I have essentially treated it as if there is no current even present. But a similar argument is used in other situations without fault.
Take for example a conducting cylinder with a hollow, cylindrical shaped space inside. By the same argument there is no field inside.
To further illustrate my point, the derivation of the B field inside of a solenoid requires you to intercept the currents. You can’t simply do the loop inside of the air gap.
This, at least to me, seems like the same thing, and I can’t justify why one is incorrect and the other is incorrect. Please point out why I am stupid.
electromagnetism
electromagnetism
edited 1 hour ago
knzhou
42.5k11117204
42.5k11117204
asked 19 hours ago
Jake RoseJake Rose
10219
10219
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
You aren't stupid, you are just learning things the same way we all did: the school of hard knocks. Ampere's law says that the integral around that closed path is zero, not that the field is zero at every point. What the law tells us is that the field is sometimes "positive" and sometimes "negative" on that path, and when we add up contributions from everywhere on the path, we get zero.
What about if you take a circularly symmetric path in the solenoid?
– Jake Rose
18 hours ago
1
Ahhh, the field is perpendicular, so B (in that direction) really does = 0..
– Jake Rose
18 hours ago
@JakeRose In that case $vec{B}$ is perpendicular to $dvec{l}$, so the integral is 0 (without the field being 0)
– Poon Levi
18 hours ago
add a comment |
Your argument is incorrect. $oint vec Bcdot dvec ell$ is $0$ when no current is enclosed but this does not imply $B=0$: you cannot use $oint vec Bcdot dvec ell= Btimes 2pi r =mu_0 I_{encl}$ since $vec B$ is not constant on the loop defined by the contour: in other words, $ointvec Bcdot dvec ell$ is not $Btimes 2pi r$ unless the contour is one where $vec Bcdot dvec ell$ is constant.
What if you take a circularly symmetric loop in the solenoid?
– Jake Rose
18 hours ago
Ahhh, the field is perpendicular, so B (in that direction) really does = 0
– Jake Rose
18 hours ago
2
@JakeRose Yes... Ampere's law is always true, but it's now always useful in recovering $vec B$: only in some specialized symmetric situations can one do this (see physics.stackexchange.com/q/318183/36194).
– ZeroTheHero
18 hours ago
add a comment |
You basically have to evaluate a line integral $oint_{rm C} vec B cdot dvec l$ over a closed loop which in general is difficult to do.
Here are two examples to show that even if there is a magnetic field present the line integral is zero.
In the left hand case $$oint_{rm C} vec B cdot dvec l = int_{rm WX} vec B cdot dvec l+int_{rm XY} vec B cdot dvec l+int_{rm YZ} vec B cdot dvec l+int_{rm ZX} vec B cdot dvec l = B,2R+0+(-B,2R)+0 =0$$
The right hand case is a little trickier.
$$oint_{rm C} vec B cdot dvec l = int_{0}^{2pi} B,Rdtheta ,sin theta = 0$$
and if one looks at a quadrant between $theta =0$ and $theta = frac pi 2$ the line integral is $displaystyle int_{0}^{frac{pi}{2}} B,Rdtheta ,sin theta = +BR$
Then going round in $frac pi 2$ steps the integral around the closed loop is $+BR+BR+(-BR)+(-BR) =0$ as before.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f452776%2fgetting-incorrect-results-applying-amperes-law%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
You aren't stupid, you are just learning things the same way we all did: the school of hard knocks. Ampere's law says that the integral around that closed path is zero, not that the field is zero at every point. What the law tells us is that the field is sometimes "positive" and sometimes "negative" on that path, and when we add up contributions from everywhere on the path, we get zero.
What about if you take a circularly symmetric path in the solenoid?
– Jake Rose
18 hours ago
1
Ahhh, the field is perpendicular, so B (in that direction) really does = 0..
– Jake Rose
18 hours ago
@JakeRose In that case $vec{B}$ is perpendicular to $dvec{l}$, so the integral is 0 (without the field being 0)
– Poon Levi
18 hours ago
add a comment |
You aren't stupid, you are just learning things the same way we all did: the school of hard knocks. Ampere's law says that the integral around that closed path is zero, not that the field is zero at every point. What the law tells us is that the field is sometimes "positive" and sometimes "negative" on that path, and when we add up contributions from everywhere on the path, we get zero.
What about if you take a circularly symmetric path in the solenoid?
– Jake Rose
18 hours ago
1
Ahhh, the field is perpendicular, so B (in that direction) really does = 0..
– Jake Rose
18 hours ago
@JakeRose In that case $vec{B}$ is perpendicular to $dvec{l}$, so the integral is 0 (without the field being 0)
– Poon Levi
18 hours ago
add a comment |
You aren't stupid, you are just learning things the same way we all did: the school of hard knocks. Ampere's law says that the integral around that closed path is zero, not that the field is zero at every point. What the law tells us is that the field is sometimes "positive" and sometimes "negative" on that path, and when we add up contributions from everywhere on the path, we get zero.
You aren't stupid, you are just learning things the same way we all did: the school of hard knocks. Ampere's law says that the integral around that closed path is zero, not that the field is zero at every point. What the law tells us is that the field is sometimes "positive" and sometimes "negative" on that path, and when we add up contributions from everywhere on the path, we get zero.
answered 19 hours ago
garypgaryp
16.7k12963
16.7k12963
What about if you take a circularly symmetric path in the solenoid?
– Jake Rose
18 hours ago
1
Ahhh, the field is perpendicular, so B (in that direction) really does = 0..
– Jake Rose
18 hours ago
@JakeRose In that case $vec{B}$ is perpendicular to $dvec{l}$, so the integral is 0 (without the field being 0)
– Poon Levi
18 hours ago
add a comment |
What about if you take a circularly symmetric path in the solenoid?
– Jake Rose
18 hours ago
1
Ahhh, the field is perpendicular, so B (in that direction) really does = 0..
– Jake Rose
18 hours ago
@JakeRose In that case $vec{B}$ is perpendicular to $dvec{l}$, so the integral is 0 (without the field being 0)
– Poon Levi
18 hours ago
What about if you take a circularly symmetric path in the solenoid?
– Jake Rose
18 hours ago
What about if you take a circularly symmetric path in the solenoid?
– Jake Rose
18 hours ago
1
1
Ahhh, the field is perpendicular, so B (in that direction) really does = 0..
– Jake Rose
18 hours ago
Ahhh, the field is perpendicular, so B (in that direction) really does = 0..
– Jake Rose
18 hours ago
@JakeRose In that case $vec{B}$ is perpendicular to $dvec{l}$, so the integral is 0 (without the field being 0)
– Poon Levi
18 hours ago
@JakeRose In that case $vec{B}$ is perpendicular to $dvec{l}$, so the integral is 0 (without the field being 0)
– Poon Levi
18 hours ago
add a comment |
Your argument is incorrect. $oint vec Bcdot dvec ell$ is $0$ when no current is enclosed but this does not imply $B=0$: you cannot use $oint vec Bcdot dvec ell= Btimes 2pi r =mu_0 I_{encl}$ since $vec B$ is not constant on the loop defined by the contour: in other words, $ointvec Bcdot dvec ell$ is not $Btimes 2pi r$ unless the contour is one where $vec Bcdot dvec ell$ is constant.
What if you take a circularly symmetric loop in the solenoid?
– Jake Rose
18 hours ago
Ahhh, the field is perpendicular, so B (in that direction) really does = 0
– Jake Rose
18 hours ago
2
@JakeRose Yes... Ampere's law is always true, but it's now always useful in recovering $vec B$: only in some specialized symmetric situations can one do this (see physics.stackexchange.com/q/318183/36194).
– ZeroTheHero
18 hours ago
add a comment |
Your argument is incorrect. $oint vec Bcdot dvec ell$ is $0$ when no current is enclosed but this does not imply $B=0$: you cannot use $oint vec Bcdot dvec ell= Btimes 2pi r =mu_0 I_{encl}$ since $vec B$ is not constant on the loop defined by the contour: in other words, $ointvec Bcdot dvec ell$ is not $Btimes 2pi r$ unless the contour is one where $vec Bcdot dvec ell$ is constant.
What if you take a circularly symmetric loop in the solenoid?
– Jake Rose
18 hours ago
Ahhh, the field is perpendicular, so B (in that direction) really does = 0
– Jake Rose
18 hours ago
2
@JakeRose Yes... Ampere's law is always true, but it's now always useful in recovering $vec B$: only in some specialized symmetric situations can one do this (see physics.stackexchange.com/q/318183/36194).
– ZeroTheHero
18 hours ago
add a comment |
Your argument is incorrect. $oint vec Bcdot dvec ell$ is $0$ when no current is enclosed but this does not imply $B=0$: you cannot use $oint vec Bcdot dvec ell= Btimes 2pi r =mu_0 I_{encl}$ since $vec B$ is not constant on the loop defined by the contour: in other words, $ointvec Bcdot dvec ell$ is not $Btimes 2pi r$ unless the contour is one where $vec Bcdot dvec ell$ is constant.
Your argument is incorrect. $oint vec Bcdot dvec ell$ is $0$ when no current is enclosed but this does not imply $B=0$: you cannot use $oint vec Bcdot dvec ell= Btimes 2pi r =mu_0 I_{encl}$ since $vec B$ is not constant on the loop defined by the contour: in other words, $ointvec Bcdot dvec ell$ is not $Btimes 2pi r$ unless the contour is one where $vec Bcdot dvec ell$ is constant.
edited 12 hours ago
answered 19 hours ago
ZeroTheHeroZeroTheHero
19k52957
19k52957
What if you take a circularly symmetric loop in the solenoid?
– Jake Rose
18 hours ago
Ahhh, the field is perpendicular, so B (in that direction) really does = 0
– Jake Rose
18 hours ago
2
@JakeRose Yes... Ampere's law is always true, but it's now always useful in recovering $vec B$: only in some specialized symmetric situations can one do this (see physics.stackexchange.com/q/318183/36194).
– ZeroTheHero
18 hours ago
add a comment |
What if you take a circularly symmetric loop in the solenoid?
– Jake Rose
18 hours ago
Ahhh, the field is perpendicular, so B (in that direction) really does = 0
– Jake Rose
18 hours ago
2
@JakeRose Yes... Ampere's law is always true, but it's now always useful in recovering $vec B$: only in some specialized symmetric situations can one do this (see physics.stackexchange.com/q/318183/36194).
– ZeroTheHero
18 hours ago
What if you take a circularly symmetric loop in the solenoid?
– Jake Rose
18 hours ago
What if you take a circularly symmetric loop in the solenoid?
– Jake Rose
18 hours ago
Ahhh, the field is perpendicular, so B (in that direction) really does = 0
– Jake Rose
18 hours ago
Ahhh, the field is perpendicular, so B (in that direction) really does = 0
– Jake Rose
18 hours ago
2
2
@JakeRose Yes... Ampere's law is always true, but it's now always useful in recovering $vec B$: only in some specialized symmetric situations can one do this (see physics.stackexchange.com/q/318183/36194).
– ZeroTheHero
18 hours ago
@JakeRose Yes... Ampere's law is always true, but it's now always useful in recovering $vec B$: only in some specialized symmetric situations can one do this (see physics.stackexchange.com/q/318183/36194).
– ZeroTheHero
18 hours ago
add a comment |
You basically have to evaluate a line integral $oint_{rm C} vec B cdot dvec l$ over a closed loop which in general is difficult to do.
Here are two examples to show that even if there is a magnetic field present the line integral is zero.
In the left hand case $$oint_{rm C} vec B cdot dvec l = int_{rm WX} vec B cdot dvec l+int_{rm XY} vec B cdot dvec l+int_{rm YZ} vec B cdot dvec l+int_{rm ZX} vec B cdot dvec l = B,2R+0+(-B,2R)+0 =0$$
The right hand case is a little trickier.
$$oint_{rm C} vec B cdot dvec l = int_{0}^{2pi} B,Rdtheta ,sin theta = 0$$
and if one looks at a quadrant between $theta =0$ and $theta = frac pi 2$ the line integral is $displaystyle int_{0}^{frac{pi}{2}} B,Rdtheta ,sin theta = +BR$
Then going round in $frac pi 2$ steps the integral around the closed loop is $+BR+BR+(-BR)+(-BR) =0$ as before.
add a comment |
You basically have to evaluate a line integral $oint_{rm C} vec B cdot dvec l$ over a closed loop which in general is difficult to do.
Here are two examples to show that even if there is a magnetic field present the line integral is zero.
In the left hand case $$oint_{rm C} vec B cdot dvec l = int_{rm WX} vec B cdot dvec l+int_{rm XY} vec B cdot dvec l+int_{rm YZ} vec B cdot dvec l+int_{rm ZX} vec B cdot dvec l = B,2R+0+(-B,2R)+0 =0$$
The right hand case is a little trickier.
$$oint_{rm C} vec B cdot dvec l = int_{0}^{2pi} B,Rdtheta ,sin theta = 0$$
and if one looks at a quadrant between $theta =0$ and $theta = frac pi 2$ the line integral is $displaystyle int_{0}^{frac{pi}{2}} B,Rdtheta ,sin theta = +BR$
Then going round in $frac pi 2$ steps the integral around the closed loop is $+BR+BR+(-BR)+(-BR) =0$ as before.
add a comment |
You basically have to evaluate a line integral $oint_{rm C} vec B cdot dvec l$ over a closed loop which in general is difficult to do.
Here are two examples to show that even if there is a magnetic field present the line integral is zero.
In the left hand case $$oint_{rm C} vec B cdot dvec l = int_{rm WX} vec B cdot dvec l+int_{rm XY} vec B cdot dvec l+int_{rm YZ} vec B cdot dvec l+int_{rm ZX} vec B cdot dvec l = B,2R+0+(-B,2R)+0 =0$$
The right hand case is a little trickier.
$$oint_{rm C} vec B cdot dvec l = int_{0}^{2pi} B,Rdtheta ,sin theta = 0$$
and if one looks at a quadrant between $theta =0$ and $theta = frac pi 2$ the line integral is $displaystyle int_{0}^{frac{pi}{2}} B,Rdtheta ,sin theta = +BR$
Then going round in $frac pi 2$ steps the integral around the closed loop is $+BR+BR+(-BR)+(-BR) =0$ as before.
You basically have to evaluate a line integral $oint_{rm C} vec B cdot dvec l$ over a closed loop which in general is difficult to do.
Here are two examples to show that even if there is a magnetic field present the line integral is zero.
In the left hand case $$oint_{rm C} vec B cdot dvec l = int_{rm WX} vec B cdot dvec l+int_{rm XY} vec B cdot dvec l+int_{rm YZ} vec B cdot dvec l+int_{rm ZX} vec B cdot dvec l = B,2R+0+(-B,2R)+0 =0$$
The right hand case is a little trickier.
$$oint_{rm C} vec B cdot dvec l = int_{0}^{2pi} B,Rdtheta ,sin theta = 0$$
and if one looks at a quadrant between $theta =0$ and $theta = frac pi 2$ the line integral is $displaystyle int_{0}^{frac{pi}{2}} B,Rdtheta ,sin theta = +BR$
Then going round in $frac pi 2$ steps the integral around the closed loop is $+BR+BR+(-BR)+(-BR) =0$ as before.
answered 9 hours ago
FarcherFarcher
47.7k33796
47.7k33796
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f452776%2fgetting-incorrect-results-applying-amperes-law%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown